Saturday, December 31, 2011

WoW - the Watchers Council
- it's the oldest, longest running cyber comte d'guere ensembe in
existence - an eclective collective of cats both cruel and benign with
their ability to put steel on target (figuratively - natch) on a wide
variety of topictry across American, Allied, Frenemy and Enemy concerns,
memes, delights and discourse.

Every week these cats hook up each other with hot hits and big phazed
cookies to peruse and then vote on their individual fancy catchers.

Friday, December 30, 2011

Way back in the last millennium, when Europa still enjoyed open combat amidst and amongst themselves, certain opportunities led Great Britain's Admiralty, led by the ever avuncular Sir Winnie, to semi sorta think up an end run around those naughty Central Powers.A surprise Royal Naval hi jinkery designed to knock out the Ottomans using RN's ubiquitous abilities to sweetly amphib sev British army Corps right into Dardanelles Straits.Threading certain straight jacketed straits with the most expensive and deadliest water borne war craft ever created came crashing down in catastrophe at a place called Gallipoli.As GsGf"s Royal Navy expert shares:Battleships like HMS' Irresistible, Ocean, Majestic and Triumph were sank by mines or uboats. The French BB Bouvet was lost and even Fisher's "Greyhound of the Sea" the awesome battlelicious Battle Cruiser HMS Inflexible suffered a near death experience.

Almost a quarter of a million ANZAC troops would die in vain over the next year, without once breaking out of their beach head trenches.

Could such ancientful Straits chiz get swerved and served up in the new millennium?

Iran has been building its military options. The Iranian navy during the time of the Shah focused on conventional capabilities. Iran's modern navy consists of both its regular navy and a naval component of its Revolutionary Guard Corps, the latter of which has strongly focused on the development of asymmetric capabilities. This focus was largely born of the Iran-Iraq War (and, more specifically, during the Tanker War of 1984-1988), when Iran attempted to control shipping through the SoH. To do this, Iran used both conventional attacks (naval gunfire and anti-ship cruise missiles) and asymmetric tactics (sea mines and small boat attacks). As a result of lessons learned by Iran at the hands of the United States Navy (Operation Praying Mantis') and an inability to procure a first-rate conventional navy, asymmetric tactics became the basis for much of Iran's modern naval doctrine.

Naval doc doc doctrine like use of convent"l weapons in unconvent"l ways, capitalizing on the strengths of, uh, atypical assets, like swiftness, maneuverahility, and stealth of small craft, to target the sluggish weaknesses of more typical naval assets and conceptualizing concepts such as mass attacks, in which assets leverage large numbers to overwhelm their targets.

And even better -

Finally, for Iran, asymmetric warfare uniquely includes concepts of a revolutionary spirit, jihad, and martyrdom

Iran has several u boats - 3 Kilo class, 7 Yono class and one tiny tiny Nahang class midget u boat.Most likely intended to be used for mine-laying, as well as special and anti-shipping operations. Iran also has a recently expanded torpedo capability.

Although Iran does have a small number of conventional surface ships such as corvettes and missile boats, it has also built or acquired many small- and medium-size fastattack craft (FAC). These FACs typically have the capability to carry armaments such as heavy machine guns or rocket launchers, as well as torpedoes and anti-ship missiles. Some are also equipped to act as covert minelayers. Iran would likely use these small boats as "swarms" in order to overwhelm a larger ship's defenses.

Persian missile stocks may be her Hormuzzing projectilin' piècederésistance

Variants of the Chinese Silkworm missile; extended-range variants of the Rad missile (a follow-on to the Seersucker) that can perform evasive maneuvers and carry warheads up to 500 kg (1000 lbs); the Noor missile, which is an upgraded version of the Chinese C-802 and is deployed in mobile batteries along Iran's coast and islands; and the diverse Kosar series of small ASCMs which are reportedly truck-mounted and deployed on Iran's Gulf islands.

With this suite of missiles, Iran can target any part of the SoH, and much of the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman as well. Iran also maintains a number of rocket systems (some of which are gyro-stabilized for use on boats), as well as shore-based artillery rockets (the Fajr series).

Many of these systems would be based along the relatively mountainous Iranian coastline, which lends itself well to the shielding and bunkering of such assets.

Iran also has a stock pile of or over 2k sea mines of every imaginable type.So, all in all - how credible is Preacher Command's threat to take the Ho out of Hormuz?

Iran has constructed a navy with considerable asymmetric and other capabilities designed specifically to be used in an integrated way to conduct area denial operations in the Persian Gulf and SoH, and they routinely exercise these capabilities and issue statements of intent to use them. This combination of capabilities and expressed intent does present a credible threat to internat"l shipping in the Strait. Further, it provides Iran with a level of deterrence for hostile action against it.

Would Iran really really be hot to really really wanna close down the straits? 1st glance the economics seem to go all the way Persia's way.

Worst-case results would be a more-than doubling of the price of crude oil; a decrease in U.S. gross domestic product of more than $161 billion, and a decline in real disposable personal income of more than $260 billion, over the course of the following year; and a loss of more than a million U.S. jobs over the following year and a half.

The economics swing both ways tho -

Iran itself is the second-largest exporter of oil among OPEC countries, with roughly two-thirds of its annual revenue coining from oil exports. Thus, blocking the Strait would significantly hurt Iran's economy as well. And, although Iran does have large foreign exchange reserves, these are much smaller than in neighboring nations. And Iran has a large, restive population that, in the past, has reacted negatively to economic hardships

Plus -

Internat'l maritime law says passage through straits, even if they are entirely within a country's territorial waters, must be unimpeded and at no cost. Thus, any closure of the SoH by Iran would immediately and rightly be considered a casus belli

With all of the above taken into account, it seems likely that Iran would not offensively attempt to close the SoH, but, if it were attacked and wished to retaliate and/or escalate a conflict, an attempted closure remains a possibility.

"Iran could not 'close the Gulf for more than a few days to two weeks even if it was willing to sacrifice all of these naval assets, suffer massive retaliation, and potentially lose many of its own oil facilities and export revenues. Its chronic economic mismanagement has made it extremely dependent on a few refineries, product imports, and food imports. It would almost certainly lose far more than it gained from such a “war."

If Iran were able to properly link all their capabilities, it could halt or
impede traffic in the Strait of Hormuz for a month or more. U.S.
attempts to reopen the waterway likely would escalate rapidly into
sustained, large-scale air and naval operations during which Iran could
impose significant economic and military costs on the United States—even
if Iranian operations were not successful in truly closing the strait.

It is likely that most countries worldwide would support the use
of force to protect the strait for two reasons; firstly, because most
of the Gulf oil goes to the majority of Asian countries through this
route, most notably China, Japan and India, in addition to European
countries, which would support a war to protect the strait – if the need
arose.

The driving motivation behind Syria's CW program has been the need to
find a way to balance Little Satan's growing conventional warfare
capabilities. During the 1980s and 1990s, the differences in the
relative capabilities of the two countries rapidly widened, leaving
Syria in a position of heightened vulnerability.

The key dilemma facing Syria has been the need to develop and maintain a
credible threat while not being so threatening as to trigger a Little Satan
attack, which would expose Syria's inadequate conventional forces to
the risk of severe defeat. In this regard, Syria has found it
advantageous to adopt an opaque policy, not unlike Little Satan's nuclear
policy, in which it neither confirms nor denies the existence of
chemical weapons even as it continues to deploy and improve them.

Syria is currently believed to deploy between 100 and 200 Scud missiles
fitted with sarin warheads. Some of these missiles may be fitted with
V-agent warheads although this information is less reliable. In
addition, Syria is believed to have stockpiled several hundred tons of
sarin and mustard agents for tactical uses in the form of artillery
shells and air-dropped munitions. Syria retains its production
infrastructure of at least three and possibly four facilities; however,
it is not known whether these are currently being used to produce new
agent.

And all that was in the Before Time - when Arab Spring was LOL'd by Bashar as being impossible to get fully crunk in ye oldeSuriya al- Kubra. And fiddling about with WMD was a very very sharp and shiny shiny two edged sword

A military capability that was established to enhance national security
through its deterrent effect, now endangers it, by threatening to
attract the wrath of Syria's enemies. Although abandoning these programs
might actually improve national security, too much has been invested in
the combined missile and CW arsenals to easily surrender them, the more
so given the critical role they play in Syria's national strategy.

Yet would hoarding chemicalicious WMD be a cursed blessing in the hands of a semi non state actor outer like the Posse of "llah?

“The danger is that the situation in Syria will deteriorate to a point
where there will be an absence of an orderly transfer of authority from
one power base to another. In this kind of situation, the immediate danger is that concentrations
of weaponry, including chemical weapons, will fall into HizBAllah’s
hands"

"What I think would happen is if you have all this and
then you give it to a terrorist group and they have a series of suitcase
bombs that could terrify and paralyze the world without creating a
nuclear cloud over J"Salem. It's really a deeply troubling thing"

“We don’t know where everything is, and there’s no obvious way to
destroy these things or parachute teams in to intercept them. It would be a very big enterprise. It’s not clear if the soldiers protecting these sites would see
responsible stewardship as their mission or would flee, fearing they
would be condemned along with the rest of the regime”

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Yet what about the Xian Nakbah - ripping right along hand in hand with Arab Sprung and events au courant?

The recent horror in Nigeria suffered by Xians celebrating their savoir X on Xmas Day no less by the “Western education is a sin”BoKo Harum cats is only a part of the murderous intolerance propagated by creepy control freaks who cannot - for whatever reasons - bear the tho't of fun and free choice (free will, nicht wahr?) anywhere in weapons range.

The Christian population in Iraq
is one of the most at risk. Around half of Iraqi Christians have fled
the country since 2003, and those who remain expect growing challenges,
given the U.S. military pullout. Christians have suffered periodic waves
of violence, including bombings, assassinations and church burnings.
When Iraq's government
said in 2010 it would issue a license to carry firearms to any
Christian family that wanted one, it was simply acknowledging the
reality that followers of the faith had to arm or die.

Pacifically, should concern 'bout Xian persecution be like hip and haunch with Great Satan's diplopolititary maneuvers?

Wouldn't that run the terrible risk of creating even more enemies, hurt feelings and driving rowdy unhinged appearing elements in sunny sunny climes (with pitiful literacy rate where a wheel barrow is still regarded as a great invention and Mother's Day is unheard of) even more bloody batty?

Christian refugees from m"Hammedist-majority countries who can reach Great Satan should be given the same special status that
asylum-seekers from communist countries were accorded during the Cold
War.

Precedent exists: The definition of a “refugee-escapee” in the 1957 Immigration and Nationality Act included not only those who had fled
“from any Communist-dominated, or Communist-occupied area” but also
those “from any country within the general area of the Middle East, and
who cannot return to such area, or to such country, on account of race,
religion or political opinion.”

Xians and other religious
minorities are increasingly unwelcome in the you know what world; they should
be given sanctuary in America.

And in an amazingly astute observation. America has always been a light reflecting X's admonishments, a beacon and a welcoming refugee

The primary threat to Okinawan airbases, the DF-15, cannot range many locations in mainland Japan or in the Philippines. But that is not to say that other regional bases, or potential contingency locations, are not exposed as well. The DF-21, in particular, could be used to hold a variety of USAF facilities or potential contingency locations at risk – especially given the very small numbers of submunition warheads required to inflict a grave amount of damage to aircraft parked in the open. There is no reason to assume that, given the efficacy of such weapons, that China will not produce more; convert some even longer-range weapons to conventional, airfield-attack duty; or build newer, conventional longer-range missiles.

"Well-trained SOF armed with sniper rifles might be able to target radars of AWACS aircraft; rocket-propelled grenades could damage or destroy airframes. The aerial view of a part of Kadena shows how close heavily populated areas are to parking ramps – including several high rises. The opportunities for mayhem that a SOF presence on Okinawa would present could make the effort worthwhile. A similar story could be told for other facilities in the western Pacific."

The result of a 6 on 36 engagement in which USAF fighters perfectly deconflict their targeted aircraft would be that all 36 hostile aircraft would either be destroyed or forced to disengage. However, 36 constitutes the upper limit that a 6-ship CAP, limited by internal armaments, could engage. This is a best-scenario, based on perfect deconfliction of targets and virtually invisible F-22s. Any aircraft beyond the first 36 would be unmolested, as the on-station missile magazine would be exhausted. This suggest a PLAAF CONOP as simple as sending two or more regiments of 24 aircraft each to attack USAF ISR, AWACs, and tankers. Such a raid, while not directly threatening the F- 22s, would result in losses to other critical assets – making the USAF air action untenable.

So far the consideration of an air battle has been largely onesided. USAF aircraft have attrited a PLAAF raid considerably, but their engagements are limited by the size of the on-station missile magazine. Engaging WVR will not result in a suitably high kill ratio to make it worthwhile. Thus, as long as PLAAF fighters raid with numbers sufficient to exhaust USAF fighters’ BVR missiles, some PLAAF aircraft will survive unmolested to engage their objective: high-value USAF aircraft like the E-3s, E-8s, and tankers that enable the entire operation (or ground or naval targets).

The dramatic advantages that USAF fighters, especially the F-22, enjoy in combat are diminished or negated in close-range aerial combat.

If PLAAF fighters were to raid USAF ISR orbits or tanker tracks with even a modest-sized surge, they would overwhelm the ability of USAF F-22s to destroy them. The table above shows expected losses from a 48- aircraft raid in which 36 PLAAF aircraft are engaged, leaving 12 PLAAF fighters (those not shot down or engaged) that survive unmolested – able to engage USAF force enablers. If the raid were bigger, even more PLAAF aircraft could survive to the terminal stage – meaning more blue force enablers would be destroyed.Further, it is not necessary that all of the PLAAF aircraft participating in such a raid be their top-of-the-line air superiority assets. The first regiment or two could be unmanned decoys or older, and somewhat expendable, aircraft – like China’s vast J-7 (Mig-21) inventory. As long as USAF aircraft shot at them, they would serve their purpose of exhausting the magazines of USAF fighters.

Monday, December 26, 2011

WoW - the Watchers Council
- it's the oldest, longest running cyber comte d'guere ensembe in
existence - an eclective collective of cats both cruel and benign with
their ability to put steel on target (figuratively - natch) on a wide
variety of topictry across American, Allied, Frenemy and Enemy concerns,
memes, delights and discourse.

Every week these cats hook up each other with hot hits and big phazed
cookies to peruse and then vote on their individual fancy catchers.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

"...You, the officers and men of this American Army must remember that you are free men fighting for the blessings of liberty.

"...At this fateful hour the eyes of all our countrymen are now upon us. The eyes of the world are watching. Let us show them all that a freeman contending for Liberty is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth.

"...And when the hour is upon us fight for all that you are worth and all that you cherish and love. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct that you show."

Horrific as the attacks were - aQ atwixt the 2 Rivers is more a nuisance than a threat to the Iraqi gov.The threat to Iraq may actually be the gov - as in the Prime Minister.

Since Great Satan unAssed the place - it seems like it's on now bay bee for a sectarian struggle like the sort that brought Iraq to the edge of the abyss when Surge started getting all crunk up. The Iraqi VP is hiding out in Kurdistan, sev province are talking about openly dissing the central gov and Iraqi PM seems only too hot for combat.

If this seems like interesting timing, it’s because it’s supposed to be. Nouri
al-Maliki, Iraq’s increasingly ambitious Shia prime minister, waited until
the US withdrawal was complete. Then he pounced, issuing an arrest warrant for Hashimi.

To understand the brewing political crisis, we should remember a few important
things. First, Iraq is not really a normal democracy – it’s a negotiated
state, delicately balanced between assorted ethnicities and sects. It’s a
game of geopolitical Jenga, in which the removal of one block, a single
Sunni leader, can bring the whole edifice crashing down.

The crisis is not confined to Baghdad. Fearful of the moves Maliki had
already made to consolidate autocratic rule under the fist of his Shi’a
Dawa Party, Sunni provincial leaders in Salahuddin and Diyala Provinces
have declared their intention to form federal autonomous regions. Maliki
has angrily rejected their rights to do so. Communities have reportedly
begun mobilizing to defend themselves against potential sectarian
conflict in Diyala.

The motivations behind the current hostility between Maliki and Vice
President Hashemi are still unclear. Though both men have always viewed
one another with suspicion and mistrust, it appears that Maliki has two
separate rationales that have prompted him to aggressively target
Hashemi by deploying tanks to surround his residence and arresting several of his bodyguards. Both allegations appear exaggerated. Maliki’s
opportunistic recognitions and ongoing efforts to consolidate power and
marginalize his political opponents are most likely serving as the
underlying logic in his decision-making.

Assassination Plot:The Maliki government is accusing Hashemi
of allegedly financing a recent terrorist attack. In early December, the
Baghdad Operations Command (BOC) suggested that the November 28 attack
on the parliament was aimed at assassinating the prime minister.

The BOC
first implied that Speaker Nujaifi, a senior Iraqiyya politician, was
complicit because video evidence showed the bomber drove directly behind
Nujaifi’s vehicle in order to receive entrance privilege. Iraqiyya,
however, stated that the assassination attempt was against Nujaifi
himself. Regardless of the questionable evidence, or lack thereof, the
ease at which the accusations are being made by the central government
is unprecedented.

Instigating Federalism:During an interview with Niqash
published just days before tanks surrounded his residence, Hashemi
responded to a question regarding the establishment of federal regions
by mentioning that the “people in the central and southern areas” are
demanding to exercise federalism “because they are unwilling to accept
further injustice, corruption and bad management from the central
government.”

It appears that soon after making his comments, Hashemi
was accused of instigating federalism movements in the Shi’a south. A
statement issued by Hashemi’s media office rejected the allegation that
he called for the southern Shi’a provinces to announce a federal region.
Hashemi’s statement maintained that the decision to form federal
regions is entirely dependent on the inhabitants of the provinces and
that any reports to the contrary have no credibility. Nevertheless,
Maliki’s recent efforts to intimidate Hashemi may be one way the prime
minister is seeking to suppress the growing calls to establish federal
regions.

The Kurds appear to have already adopted a mediating role in calming
tensions and bringing both sides to arranged negotiations. The Kurdish
bloc is likely the only third actor that is able to credibly mediate
between the two blocs. Given the lack of U.S. leverage, the White House
appears to be working directly with Barzani in order to resolve the
crisis before it escalates any further.

Rather than street celebrations marking the end of foreign occupation,
Iraqis are weary of the severe political deterioration they are
currently witnessing in Baghdad. Although adhering to the timetable
stipulated by the 2008 U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement, it is becoming more
and more apparent that the full U.S. withdrawal was premature. Iraq’s
politics and discourse have not matured toward a level of stability that
can reinforce confidence in the political system.

The U.S. exit had
removed a critical deterrent from Iraq’s political environment that
helped stabilize discourse and expectations between the various
conflicting factions. Today, the level and type of rhetoric,
accusations, and the lengths that the Maliki government has gone to
intimidate and undermine political rivals demonstrates an unprecedented
era of political hostility not seen since Iraq’s sectarian war.

Without the pacifying effect of the U.S. military’s presence,
uncertainty and fear are likely to be the dominant forces shaping Iraq’s
politics. As a consequence, such an environment will be prone to
unpredictable scenarios and behavior that move Iraq towards armed
conflict and societal fragmentation.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

The Honorable 44President of the United States of AmericaThe White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. President:The situation in Syria is rapidly deteriorating. The United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that over 5,000 Syrian
civilians have been killed, and 14,000 more detained, since President
Bashar al-Assad’s crackdown against anti-regime protestors began in
March 2011. Cities such as Homs are under siege, with the Syrian
military’s tanks and armored vehicles firing indiscriminately into
residential areas, and regime forces going house-to-house to arrest or
murder the regime’s opponents. The conflict is quickly escalating
towards civil war.

We are glad that, in the time since your
call for President Assad to step down on August 18, 2011, the United
States, European Union, and regional powers have increased the breadth
and strength of sanctions imposed against the Assad regime. However, it
is increasingly clear that more assertive American leadership and
international action are required to ensure that the Syrian people have
the opportunity to enjoy a post-Assad future as soon as possible.America’s interests in Syria are clear. The Syrian government, which
has been on the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terror list since
1979, maintains a strategic partnership with Iran, Hamas, and
Hezbollah. For years, the Assad regime also assisted the transit of
foreign fighters who were responsible for killing numerous American
troops in Iraq. And for years, the Syrian government secretly pursued a
nuclear program with North Korean assistance. The emergence of a
representative Syrian government that protects the rights of all of its
citizens and opposes violent extremism in all forms would therefore be a
significant blow to Tehran and dramatically improve regional security
and stability.

Members of your administration, however, have
made statements against the militarization of the uprising, even warning
that such a turn could threaten international support for their cause.
Such a position is counterproductive, especially since the protesters
themselves are calling for international protection from the Assad
regime’s forces. As of now, this protection is coming only from
defectors from the Syrian military, who are fighting in support of the
revolution. U.S. condemnation of their armed resistance undercuts them,
and could have the effect of discouraging further Syrian military
defections.

As was the case in Libya, the situation in Syria
is one in which our interests and our values converge. We therefore
urge you to take the following immediate actions to bring an end to
Assad’s brutality:

Show leadership on sanctions by
immediately supporting legislation originally proposed by Senators
Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Kirk, and Joseph Lieberman, and Representatives
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Eliot Engel, and working with allies to impose
other crippling multilaterally-based sanctions on the Syrian government.

Form
a contact group of like-minded international partners to coordinate
national strategies to further increase pressure on the Assad regime.

Establish
direct contact with various anti-regime Syrian groups, especially the
Syrian National Council, as well as those who have defected from the
Syrian military, and evaluate their leadership and membership with the
aim of increasing the capabilities of those groups whose political goals
accord with U.S. national security interests.

Work
with Turkey and other partners to establish safe havens in Syria, as
well as no-go zones for the Assad regime’s security forces to protect
civilians.

In the absence of American leadership, other
countries that do not necessarily share our goals and values are
stepping in to fill the void in Syria. Given the stakes, it is
important that the United States lead on this issue. The Syrian people
are calling for protection from the Assad regime. It is our moral
obligation and in our interest to assist them.

As you said in the case of Libya, it is now time "to live the values we hold so dear."

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Long before Czechoslovakia’s Communist regime collapsed in 1989,
Václav Havel was one of the most remarkable figures in Czech history —
already a successful playwright when he became the unofficial leader of
the opposition movement. Though he hoped to return to writing, the
revolution catapulted him to the presidency of Czechoslovakia and, after
the country split in 1993, he was elected president of the new Czech
Republic, serving until 2003.

A political career rooted in historical coincidence made Havel an
unusual politician. Not only did he bring to post-1989 politics a
certain distrust of political parties, as a former dissident he
considered it essential to emphasize the moral dimension of politics — a
stance that steered him onto a collision course with the pragmatists
and technologists of power, whose main representative, Václav Klaus,
succeeded him as president.

Havel’s public life could be divided into three distinct periods:
artist (1956-1969), dissident (1969-1989) and politician (1989-2003) —
except that he always combined all three sensibilities in his public
activities. As a promising playwright in the 1960s, he was certainly
very “political,” focusing on the absurdity of the regime. He was also
one of the most vocal critics of censorship and other human-rights
violations, which made him a dissident even during the liberal “Prague Spring” of 1968.

Havel was blacklisted and openly persecuted after the Soviet-led
invasion of Czechoslovakia in August of that year, but he continued to
write antitotalitarian plays. In 1977, he and more than 200 other
dissidents founded the human-rights movement Charter 77, which quickly
established itself as a leading opposition force. Havel was one of its
first three spokesmen.

The following year, he wrote a seminal essay, “The Power of the Powerless,” in which he described Czechoslovakia’s post-1968
“normalization” regime as a morally bankrupt system based on
all-pervasive lying. In 1979, he was sentenced to a five-year prison
term for his activities in the Committee of the Unjustly Prosecuted, an
offshoot of Charter 77 that monitored human-rights abuses and
persecution in Czechoslovakia. He was released near the end of his term
after contracting pneumonia (a source of serious health problems for the
rest of his life). His Letters to Olga, philosophical essays written from prison and addressed to his wife, quickly became a classic of antitotalitarian literature.

As president of Czechoslovakia, Havel continued to combine his
political, dissident and artistic sensibilities. He insisted on writing
his own speeches, conceiving many of them as philosophical and literary
works, in which he not only criticized the dehumanized technology of
modern politics, but also repeatedly appealed to Czechs not to fall prey
to consumerism and mindless party politics.

His was a conception of democracy based on a strong civil society and morality. That distinguished him from Klaus, the other leading figure
of the post-Communist transformation, who advocated a quick transition,
stripped, if possible, of inconvenient moral scruples and impediments
posed by the rule of law. Their conflict came to a head in 1997, when
the Klaus-led government fell after a series of scandals. Havel
described the economic system created by Klaus’s post-Communist reforms
as “mafioso capitalism.”

Although Klaus never returned as prime minister, his “pragmatic”
approach gained the upper hand in Czech politics, especially after
Havel’s departure from presidency in 2003. Indeed, Havel’s greatest
defeat may be that most Czechs now view their country as a place where
political parties serve as agents of powerful economic groups (many of
them created by the often-corrupt privatization process overseen by
Klaus).

In the last years of his presidency, Havel’s political opponents
ridiculed him as a naïve moralist. Many ordinary Czechs, on the other
hand, had come to dislike him not only for what seemed like relentless
moralizing, but also because he reflected back to them their own lack of
courage during the Communist regime. While he continued to enjoy
respect and admiration abroad, if only for continuing his fight against
human-right abuses around the world, his popularity at home was shaken.

But not anymore. Czechs, given their growing dissatisfaction with the
current political system’s omnipresent corruption and other failings,
have increasingly come to appreciate the importance of Havel’s moral
appeals. In fact, now, after his death, he is well on the way to being
lionized as someone who foresaw many current problems, and not only at
home: while still president, he repeatedly called attention to the
self-destructive forces of industrial civilization and global
capitalism.

Many will ask what made Havel exceptional. The answer is simple:
decency. He was a decent, principled man. He did not fight against
communism because of some hidden personal agenda, but simply because it
was, in his view, an indecent, immoral system. When, as president, he
supported the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 or the coming invasion of
Iraq in 2003, he did not talk about geopolitical or strategic objectives
but about the need to stop human-rights abuses by brutal dictators.

Acting on such beliefs in his political career made him a politician
of the kind that the contemporary world no longer sees. Perhaps that is
why, as the world — and Europe in particular — faces a period of
profound crisis, the clarity and courageous language that would bring
about meaningful change is missing.

The death of Havel, a great believer in European integration, is thus
highly symbolic: he was one of the last of a now-extinct breed of
politicians who could lead effectively in extraordinary times because
their first commitment was to common decency and the common good, not to
holding power. If the world is to make it through its various crises
successfully, his legacy must remain alive.

First causality in the diplopolititary realm was the freshly minted "Off Shore Balancing."Totally bassackwards Amazingly ironic with it's democrazy forsakingment meme, on release it was instantly obsolete by the 1st week end it ever saw the light of day

"...Washington should also get out of the business of trying to
spread democracy around the globe, and more generally acting as if we
have the right and the responsibility to interfere in the domestic
politics of other countries.

"...This behavior, which violates the all-important principle of
self-determination, not only generates resentment toward the United
States, but also gets us involved in nation building, which invariably
leads to no end of trouble.

Arab Spring acquired its name in part because it conjured memories of the upheavals that brought an end to dictatorship in other parts
of the world — including the former Soviet bloc, East Asia and Latin
America. It seemed logical that Middle Eastern states would, at last,
follow the same path that led in other places from dictatorship and
economic stagnation to free elections, free markets and integration into
a global economy.

J"ever note that Great Satan"s shameful hooked up despotries were comparatively benign xfers of pow pow power compared with enemy regimes like Libya and Suriya al- Kubra?

A year later, it’s clear that the Arab revolutions are different in some fundamental ways — Colonel Khadaffy is history, the Assad and Saleh regimes may soon follow. Yet the thousands of
deaths they caused have cast a pall over their countries; no one yet
knows when and how the killing will end or whether there will be
reconciliation.

2nd diff in the Arab transformation is the worrying economic prospects of newly liberated countries. Arab states so far are leaning toward a populism that could inhibit
foreign investment and trade. They are also unlikely to receive as much
Western aid as helped the new democracies of the 1980s and ’90s. Libya
will prosper with oil. But many young Arabs may find that their
aspirations for jobs remain unmet.

A final distinction is the nature of the political movements coming to
power in the revolution’s aftermath. Though the Islamists of Tunisia,
Egypt, Morocco and elsewhere say that they are democrats, they are not
liberal — and their relations with the West are uneasy at best. The true
liberals of the Arab world — those who plotted the uprisings on
Facebook and brought the secular middle classes to the street — risk
being marginalized. They lack the organization of mosque-based movements
or the foreign funding supplied by conservative states such as Saudi
Arabia and Qatar. In Egypt, they also remain the prime target of a
military establishment that hopes to preserve an outsize measure of
power.

Consider how unprepared Western governments were for the events of the Arab Spring. They shouldn’t have been. Ordinary people were losing their fear, daring to exercise their
long-suppressed faculty to not only speak but also think freely. It was
merely a matter of time before the actions of a few would multiply and
become, in the end, irrepressible.

Arab Spring gave the lie to the stability model, which was in fact a recipe for instability. In Cairo’s Tahrir Square the
people spoke, and what did they demand? Not the destruction of Little Satan.
Not the damnation of Great Satan. They demanded the right to live in a
society where minds would no longer be controlled. Their demand was
local, but their message was universal.

There are too many men and women who have too many ways of making their
voices heard, whether on the streets or in cyberspace. There’s no
looking back. These once-closed societies are now open or opening, and
that process cannot be reversed. The history of the modern Arab world
has only just begun.

Monday, December 19, 2011

"Dear Leader Kim Jong Il
is a rare great man of Baekdu type who was born at Mt.Baekdu, the
sacred mountain of our nation, and made an unusual growth amidst the
special revolutionary education of his parents, brilliant commanders of
Baekdu, as well as the practical training of the revolutionary struggle.
He personifies the revolutionary spirit, trait and nature of Mt.Baekdu.

The revolutionary spirit of Mt.Baekdu personified by him is the spirit of independence associated with the soul of Baekdu,
the spirit of gun inheriting the linage of Baekdu, the indefatigable
revolutionary spirit replete with the mettle of Baekdu and the
optimistic spirit consistent with cheerfulness of Baekdu.

The
revolutionary trait of Mt.Baekdu possessed by him is pluck and courage
of Baekdu-style giant, ever-victorious sagacity of the brilliant
commander of Baekdu, broad-mindedness befitting a heroic man, organizing
ability of leading millions of people, indefatigable attacking spirit,
strong ability of execution."

"The American scoundrels are about to start a war against us. Will we be able to defeat them?” The
generals replied without hesitation: “Yes, we can win!” “When have we
ever lost a war?” “We shall win every battle!” “How can we ever lose
when we have you, Commander of Steel, our Great Leader, to lead us?”
“Oh, Great Leader! Just give us the order!” “In a single breath we will
rush to the South, drive out the American imperialists, and unify the
fatherland!”

Despite such vigorous displays of bravado, Great Leader did not appear especially convinced.

“That’s all very well. But what if we lose? What shall we do if we lose?”
The
moment Great Leader uttered the word “lose,” the generals’ lips closed
and remained tightly shut. As they sat still in extreme anxiety, the
51-year-old Kim Jong Il suddenly stood up.

Raising his clenched fists, Kim yelled out,

“Great Leader! I will be sure to destroy the Earth! What good is this Earth without North Korea?”Great Leader looked with fatherly love and pride at his eldest son

“That
is surely the answer. I am pleased to see that a new North Korean
general has been born at this very gathering. Henceforth, I transfer to
you the operational command of the North Korean military."

Saturday, December 17, 2011

WoW - the Watchers Council
- it's the oldest, longest running cyber comte d'guere ensembe in
existence - an eclective collective of cats both cruel and benign with
their ability to put steel on target (figuratively - natch) on a wide
variety of topictry across American, Allied, Frenemy and Enemy concerns,
memes, delights and discourse.

Every week these cats hook up each other with hot hits and big phazed
cookies to peruse and then vote on their individual fancy catchers.

Friday, December 16, 2011

When yours truly began reconstructing neoism xforming it into daemoneoconservatism - the Brit Cats played a major role ala injecting ideals of interventions into the mix. Reaching out to the fab four - Uncle Tony, Douglas Murray, Edward Beaman and Uncle Chris.

It was the Balkans Action Council that appealed to me. These people wanted to act. That war in the early 1990's changed a lot for me, Courtney.I never thought I would see, in Europe, a full dress reprise of konzentration lager, mass murder of civilians, the constitution of torture and rape as acts of policy. And I never expected so many of my comrades to be indifferent - or even take the side of the fascists!

This was a time when many on the left were saying "Don't intervene, we'll only make things worse" or, "Don't intervene, it might destabilize the region..." And I thought - destabilization of fascist regimes is a good thing. Why should the left care care about the stability of undemocratic regimes? It was a time when the left was mostly taking the status quo position - leave the Balkans alone, leave Milosevic alone, do nothing.

That's when I began to first find myself on the same side as the neocons. I was signing petitions in favour of action in Bosnia, and I would look down the list of names and I kept finding, there's Richard Perle. There's Paul Wolfowitz. There's Joshua Muravchik. That seemed interesting to me. These people were saying we had to act.

Hitch always wrote what he knew to be true and suffered no moral equivalency with out spitting razor blades. And never really gave a dang what anyone thought about it either.

It's quite good that you and your mates take Strauss's admonishments to heart regarding relativism. "Which one of these things is not like the other thing" is spot on. As for the rest of his work, like you, I never quite understood it.

I do enjoy GsGf and your irreverent disregard for long held 'truths' in the international discourse and the jabberwocky style does the Queen's a welcome new kink. Keep writing and learning.

wHoA!

h0t!

~hEy Y"all! DoN"t MiSs GsGf~!

Guaranteed to magically transform subscribers into superior intellectuals, worldly, pious, witty, cool, fun to be with, irresistable, au courant and all together with it. Amaze friends, confound enemies and revel in the envy and righteous respect of peers.